Lars:
> Though: what is special about humans are the vocal
> chords.
Yes, but if your question is "When did vocal
language as we speak it today begin?" then logically,
we must search for the first instance of modern
human vocal chords... That's looking to be
potentially 300,000 yrs if I'm not mistaken. That in
itself suggests that "language" is as old as the
hills.
If you're searching for the origin of "grammar",
that's a different question. It's known that chimps
or gorillas aren't as adept at structured grammar
as we are. I figure that if early humans learned first
to communicate through rudimentary hand gestures, then
it stands to follow that the development of complex
grammar stems from those millions of years in the
open grasslands doing hand signals.
I think we both agree that vocal chords then have
really very little to do with the question "When did
language begin?".
> On my own priority list I would place the forehead
> and facial expressions, next hands and different
> grunts.
Right. Even animals use body signals. That is also
communication even though we don't respect it as
such. We still use these body signals in our daily
lives without realizing it, which is why some people
are good at spotting the fibbers. Some choose to
mythologize this complex gift as 'intuition'
or 'psychic powers'.
> For those able to hear the grunts in certain
> combinations, however, it meant a practical means
> of communication independent of daylight and direct
> attention and quickened development considerably.
The switch from sign to speech is really just a
trade-off.
I think it would be a mistake to think that just
because speech may have evolved out of sign, that
somehow sign is a 'less developed' or 'less
advantageous' form of communication. The two forms
of communication have their own unique advantages.
A sign language could be great for hunting, I think.
Sign is very stealth and won't necessarily chase the
animals away (as long as you don't move too much!).
It can also be seen over long distances, another great
advantage.
I think that a switch from sign to speech is really
simply more of an evolution towards greater symbolism
or abstractification. I'm not even sure what advantage
abstractification gives us, but we can see that
while sign language directly paints visual pictures
in thin air, vocal communication (aside from
onomatopeia) is largely very removed from the
qualities
of the object being discussed.
When we say "bull", there is really nothing about the
sounds /b/, /U/ or /l/ which paint the picture of
a 'bull' in our brains. Rather, 'bull' has become a
highly abstract symbol of the object in question, one
not inherently obvious to those outside the circle.
Yet, if you sign with your two index fingers bent
outward against the two sides of your head, suddenly
the symbolic human brain can see the speaker
anthropomorphized into the bull being discussed.
The issue here is about increasingly complex
symbolism.
More food for thought. Bon apetit.
= gLeN
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs